Can you cite a reasonable article which estmates roughly how many of the deaths with COVID are "with covid not OF covid". Or, if you prefer, estimate roughly how many people on average in the UK are who dying with or of COVID who would anyway have died of something else in a year or two - for the latter, here is an attempt by actuaries: https://www.theactuary.com/features/2020/05/07/co...

I'm curious that you do cite an article by Simon Elmer of Architects for Social Housing. Is there any reason you do that rather than one by Carl Heneghan and/or Sunetra Gupta, who while, it seems, they are not in the mainstream of science on this, they are epidemiologists? Put bluntly, what are Simon Elmer's qualifications to comment on this? As a reader of - and occasional poster on - ConHome who is probably (more than?) somewhat to the left of the majority on this site, I find it intriguing that you seem to be citing an article by someone who appears to be an architect rather than an epidemiologist or economist, and moreover one who's political views seem more than somewhat to the left of me. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/simon-elmer/davi...
Of course, that doesn't necessarily make them wrong, but it might give you pause for thought.

Since I mentioned Sunetra Gupta, and since it appears almost compulsory for a ConHome post to rubbish Neil Ferguson's work, this April 2020 quote might be of interest:
"A spokesman for Prof Gupta told The Telegraph: 'Prof Gupta remains friendly with Prof Neil Ferguson and greatly respects his academic work.'" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8187123/...

Sort of true. But try applying that logic to a critical mass of Uranium 235.

Because the part of the population that listens to Talk Radio and responds to its self-selected surveys is unlikely to be representative of the population as a whole, but that does not mean its audience is homogenous.

To repeat myself: you mean like the film U-571? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-571_(film)

You mean like the film U-571? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-571_(film)

Fortunately. But "wee krankie", and similar, seem to be a relatively popular way for some ConHome posters - but not you? - of referring to the Scottish First minister?

That seems correct - I've put some figures in a post below which I believe clearly shows that. My only quibble is whether the merger was a significant factor. Is there any research which suggests the merger was a major factor?

I suggest that the decline in Conservative (and associates) vote in Scotland dates from long before 30 years ago (1990): in fact 25 years ago is - very roughly - the end of a long period of decline which arguably dates from about 50 years ago (1960s).

I don't see that devolution is a simple explanation of the rise of the SNP, but I'm willing to consider some proper research. Meanwhile, consider the following improper research. Caveat: there may be some copying errors in the following figures, but I believe any errors do not affect the overall picture.

1. The Conservative Party decline in Scottish vote started long before devolution, and has, roughly and eventually, increased somewhat since devolution.

2. The SNP vote has, roughly, increased since 1964, plateauing from 1992 to 2010, which includes over 10 years of devolved government. There is the substantial increase in SNP vote in 2015 to 2019, but what is the evidence that that is due to devolution rather than at last partly to other causes, for example the Con & LibDem coalition?

General Elections percentage of votes cast in Scotland
Year Con Lab Lib/LD SNP

2019  25  19  10  45
2017  29  27  7  37 ?
2015  15  24  8  50

Lab vote collapse and SNP vote jump

2010  18  42  19  20
2005  16  40  23  18
2001  16  43  16  20

1999 Scottish Parliament
1997 Devolution referendum

bottom(-ish) of Con vote long decline

1997  18  46  13  22
1992  26  39  13  22
1987  24  42  19  14
1983  28  35  25  12
1979  31  42  9  17
1974  25  36  8  30
1974  33  37  8  22
1970  38  45  6  11
1966  38  50  7  5
1964  41  49  8  2
1959  47  47  4  1
1955  50  47  2  1
1951  45  48  3  0
1950  45  46  7  0
1945  40  48  6  1

I am unfamiliar with TalkRadio and Mike Graham. Was the poll self-selected, and if it was how likely is it that it is reasonably representative of the opinions of al, UK adults?

I've just tried that. It talks about a group of Swedish academics - and others? - spreading information - or if you prefer propaganda - disparaging the Swedish approach to COVID. But that is not necessarily the same thing as being anti-Swedish: if it was a substantial number of clearly right-wing ConservativeHome posters would have to be described as anti-British.

Also you say "this website that explains the way the globalists have funded leftwing academics to spread anti-Sweden propaganda and mis-information".

I have read the translated article and saw no reference to globalists funding anyone whether or not academics, and whether or not leftwing. But perhaps I missed that bit? Please copy and paste the part of the translated article which justifies that part of your post.